Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-20 Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held CALL TO ORDER December 7, 2020 Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Monday, December 7, 2020 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. She noted that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the State's emergency declaration, the meeting is being conducted via an online platform and live -streamed at the City's website and via the City's YouTube. This is allowed due to the Legislature's approval of temporary changes to the Ohio Open Meetings Law. Citizens can submit any comments prior to the meeting by e-mail to the Clerk or during the meeting via the form on the website. She emphasized that Council desires to accommodate public participation and comment to the greatest extent possible throughout this Pandemic. ROLL (:ALL Present were Mayor Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Ms. Alutto, Ms. Fox, Mr. Keeler, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Reiner. Staff mF;mbers present were Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Readler, Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Stiffler, Chief Paez, Mr. Ashford, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Burness, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. O'Malley, Mr. Stanford, Ms. Martin, Ms. Noble, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Dearth. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Rogers led the Pledge of Allegiance. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS • Wreaths Across America — Don Piunno, former Grand Leprechaun Mr. Piunno provided an update on this annual program carried out by the Grand Leprechauns, honoring those who have served in the military. Wreaths were placed on the veteran graves in all the Dublin cemeteries, and the entrances and monuments were decorated as well. The presentation is being done virtually this year for public safety rekasons. He encouraged the public to visit the cemeteries at their convenience. He acknowledged Dublin staff members who assisted in compiling the list of veterans to be recognized in this program. Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked him and the other Grand Leprechauns for this wonderful program. • Recognition of Dublin residents Judy Mobley, Chief Executive Officer and Joy Kouns-Lewis, Vice President of Human Resources for Children's Hunger Alliance Mayor Amorose Groomes read proclamations in recognition of these Dublin residents and all of their work on behalf of the Children's Hunger Alliance. Ms. Mot stated they are honored to be recognized tonight by Council. Families who have never needed help before have found themselves in need of food during the pandemic. She noted that over the course of the past year, Children's Hunger Alliance has provided 9.5 million meals across the state of Ohio and they do not see this need reducing anytime soon. They had to rent a warehouse and start packing meals themselves due to the need. Anyone interested in volunteer opportunities should contact them. She added it is a misconception that there are no children in suburban school districts that do not need help. They focus on schools where at least 50 percent of the children qualify for free or reduced cost meals. One of their new initiatives is providing holiday meals for the Wright Elementary students and families who are experiencing hardship. They are looking forward to helping provide food on weekends and over the Christmas holiday. Ms. Kouns-Lewis thanked Council and particularly Council Member Fox for this recognition. She noted she is also honored to be selected as an honoree for Women for Empowerment Leadership Development (WELD). She also serves as a board member for the Asian American Commerce Group. She is well positioned to help in feeding ctildren during this unprecedented time. She will continue their commitment to achieve -the various organizational missions she represents. Ms. Fox added that it is an honor to raise up these two Dublin women for this recognition. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of — _ Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, 0H10 Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 2 of 25 CITIZEN COMMENTS Dave Tiefenthaler, 5221 Locust Hill Lane, Dublin, stated he is speaking on behalf of his neighbors. He is very frustrated and disappointed with the commercial development under construction at 5281 Locust Hill Lane and is appealing to the City for help. They need immediate action from Council. The current owners purchased the property two years ago for the purpose of operating a for profit business. If the owners were using it as its original use, it would not be problematic. However, major commercial modifications have been made to this single-family house. The City has issued building permits for this nursing/convalescent center of eight bedrooms with an occupancy of 12-16 people. This conversion to a commercial building results in HVAC units outside, giving the appearance of a hotel. There is an orange commercial waterline brought to the property and changes to the outside appearance. Locust Hill Lane has deed restrictions that run with the land that was developed 60 years ago. The requirements are a single family home with garage. Dublin Code defines a single family as a single- family dwelling, detached or attached building arranged or designed to be occupied by one family, the structure having only one principal dwelling unit. This is an excerpt from the Dublin Code. Deed restrictions are intended to protect one's real estate and once properly recorded as these are, they remain in the chain of title forever. The property owners who buy the property must abide by the deed restrictions. The owners used the advice of a Boulder, CO law firm regarding zoning law. They have a video on their website titled, "Zoning Hacks to Get you Started Fast." They feel victimized by this approach. The City's endorsement of this project is at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. They anticipate damages in many ways — increased traffic from staff, visitors and deliveries around the clock. They fear for their safety. They are concerned with a decrease in property values and the ability to sell their properties in the future. He has questions for Council: 1. Why were they not notified by City Zoning when commercial changes were made to this property's conversion from residential into commercial use? There were commercial building permits issued by the City — not residential building permits. Past precedent has been set that local residents are notified of any deviations to City Code. No notification was ever provided to the neighborhood. 2. Why would the City issue building permits that run against the property deed restrictions? 3. Has anyone on Council done a drive by of this commercial property in a residential neighborhood? Their street is a cul de sac with a limited number of homes — a true small neighborhood in a large metro area. They now have threat of a commercial enterprise on their street. They don't feel safe with this commercial property and it is deployed in a residential neighborhood. The Cit5y has not protected the citizens of Dublin. They do not agree with a significant expansion of the lodge into a commercial enterprise for occupancy up to 16 residents. They are asking for help. Please give credence to the deed restrictions; give us a voice when zoning changes are made without their notification. They ask that the City suspend existing building permits and not issue occupancy permits -to this business enterprise and that the lodge be converted back into a single- family rE1,sidence with a garage. He thanked Council for their attention and consideration. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Mr. Close to comment. Michael Close, attorney, noted he represents 100 percent of the neighbors in the neighborhood with the exception of the owners of the commercial project in process. When these clients came to him, it was not about litigation, but they wanted to know what thEl plans are for this site by the owners Scott Hamilton and his wife. He called the Hamiltons and invited them to a neighborhood meeting to explain the project and they did so. However, they surreptitiously recorded the meeting in an attempt to use it against the group when this was brought to court. It did not work because nothing hostile, impolite or illegal was stated in the meeting. They ended up in court over the deed re.aArictions and the fact that they should supersede whatever else is underway. There are implications for the ADA and the Fair Housing Act. What they discovered RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of __ Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 3 of 25 along the way was because Dublin had issued building permits for the changes, the Judge questions whether or not he had a right to step in with regard to the deed restrictions. These are two separate issues and he hopes the case was made regarding that fact. The requirement to provide housing for people with disabilities in all neighborhoods prompted Dublin to amend their Code a few years ago and to make this kind of home a permitted use under the Dublin Code. Had the City made it a conditional use, which would have required notice to the neighbors, this problem would not have occurred. In this case, there is a for profit organization designed as a commercial LLC to maximize the amount of residents that can live in that building. If this were merely a case of remodeling the home to allow 5-6 residents to live in it, they would riot be in court nor here tonight. However, they have made a substantial addition, converted a garage which was required to be in place under the deed restrictions to living space, essentially having a nursing home on a private street. The out of state law firm advised them how to secure building permits. It is acceptable to have disabled people live in the home as it existed, but not in this commercial enterprise being constructed. At this point, a trial has taken place on the request for a permanent injunction in front of Judge Steve McIntosh and the decision is pending. The reality is he is not sure what Council can do for these people. However, not issuing occupancy permits would be helpful. Council needs to review the Code to prevent this situation from happening again. He advises this be a conditional use so that neighbors receive notice. The goal is to keep a residential neighborhood residential — not to have a residEkntial neighborhood with a nursing home at the end of the street, maximizing the owner's profit. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Ms. Readier to share information she has gathered. Ms. Readler stated that these types of uses are categorized as a Community Residence under Dublin's zoning code. These types of uses came up several years ago, and in 2014, a zoning code amendment was brought forward to deal with these types of" uses. There are federal and state disability and discrimination laws that come into play with these type of facilities. The City therefore secured an expert in this field of compliance with the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act — Daniel Lauber. He provided recommendations regarding how to address these uses in the Dublin Code. Under state law, we are to treat these types of facilities as we would single-family homes. We do have a provision for conditional use approval if there are certain distancing requirements not met. There was a meeting at the outset of the project as Mr. Close has referenced. The Building Department did issue multiple permits — all were in compliance with the Code as it is written today. There was reference in the homeowner's statements to litigation now that involves a deed restriction. Deed restrictions are private contractual arrangements, which are entered into by property owners and conveyed by deed and are in the chain of title. The City of Dublin as a governmental entity does not get involved in enforcing deed restrictions. Those are a private cause of action, which is now in litigation. Mayor Amorose Groomes acknowledged this is a concerning situation for all. She asked for clarification about the City's part in deed restrictions in terms of building permits. Ms. Readier stated the City would not consult deed restrictions, as the City is not the beneficiary of those deed restrictions. All we can do as a City is enforce the Dublin Code as written. There are disclaimers in our permit application process indicating a property owner may be subject to deed restrictions and the property owner should check to see if there are such restrictions. Because that is a purely private cause of action, the Building Department does not get involved in reviewing those nor how they should or should not be enforced. Ms. Fox stated her understanding of the Code's intent was the allowance of a living facility in a residential neighborhood that would look just like any other residential home — that it Would not be altered on the exterior and would not be changed to identify it as something different. She thought our Code had protections in place such as these. If there are HVAC units on the outside of windows, it appears more hotel -like than a residential facility. Where are the parameters in the Code about appearance? Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Ci_ty Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 4 of 25 Ms. Readier responded that any restrictions that apply to a single-family home apply to this, too. Under Dublin's Code, a single-family homeowner can build an addition to their house, convert their garage, or add ramps on the exterior of the home. Ms. Foix asked if this building complies with the International Property Maintenance Code in terms of adequate square footage per person. Ms. Readier stated she would defer to the Building Department on this question. Staff can verify this with the Director. Ms. Foix asked if there is a limit to how many people can occupy a residence. Ms. Readier responded there is an overcrowding section in our code that indicates minimum space per person requirements. Ms. Fox noted she thought the ORC limits the persons up to five. Ms. Readier responded it is actually five or more. Ms. Fox stated the intent of the Code change was to ensure there was integration of seniors and people with disabilities into the neighborhood. This was never intended to be a commercial use, as she understood it. Mr. Peterson asked Ms. Readier if there was any discretion in granting the permits by the Building Department. If it met the standards, was the City required to issue the permits? Ms. Readier responded the Building Department would simply review the modifications -to the home and they would not have discretion about issuing permits as long as it complied with Code. Mr. Peterson stated that once it was submitted and the Code compliance confirmed, there was no choice other than issuing the building permits, correct? Ms. Readier responded affirmatively. Mr. Peterson stated that the issue is then what is the use that will be associated with this. He, assumes none of the people to live in the house are related to each other and that they are paying to live in this facility. Ms. Readier stated she is not familiar with the intricacies of this, but the City does not look at that aspect in terms of the use. With the Community Residence in our code, it is five or more unrelated individuals and a license must be issued by the state of Ohio. That is -the other limitation in place. The commercial use of it is a characterization as we are to treat these Community Residences as a single-family use and they are intended to operate as a family -like unit. There have been arguments before about people leasing out their home or using it as an Airbnb — we don't look at the way they are being paid, but rather if they meet the requirements in the Code. That is the extent of the City's review. Mr. Peterson asked how far along the construction project is at this time. Mr. Close responded they expect to be completed by the end of the year. They must complete all of the work on the facility before submitting their application to the Department of Health. Originally, he obtained a temporary restraining order to shut them down. When their attorneys complained, the neighborhood agreed instead to move to an immediate hearing on the merits. That occurred 10 days later. Mr. Peterson stated that it seems that no matter what definition of single-family residence you want to apply, this is not it. By any of the most liberal definitions of single-fc,amily residence, this is not that. There is a capacity for 12 people who would pay significant amounts of money to live in this facility. This is not a single family use. The couiple meeting with neighbors to explain project seemed to be a goodwill gesture, but instead they tape recorded it without disclosure. This gives one pause. He is not certain what options the City would have in this case and time is short. Mr. Cloc.-,e stated that at the time of the injunction, the property owner claimed the project would be completed by the end of the year. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she circulated the meeting minutes from the discussion about the Code change regarding Community Residences. There is definitely some work needed on the Code. This was not envisioned when the amendments were discussed. She suggested that staff review the Code section she forwarded to them. It was her understanding that it would not be permissible to convert a garage to additional living space without building an additional two -car garage. Evidently, when the Code was amended, that did not result. Mayor Amorose Groomes provided responses to the resident's questions: Regarding why they were not notified, it was viewed as a residential building permit by staff and Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of. Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 5 of 25 did not warrant any special notification; regarding why the City issued permits in conflict with deed restrictions, as Ms. Readier described, those are not a City matter but a private matter; as far as Council members having driven by the site, she did so and is profoundly sympathetic to the comments made tonight by the residents. Mr. Close stated he has no disagreement with anything Ms. Readier reported in terms of the law. He asked if the City would consider joining them in the litigation. Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that Council could consider this, but it would an executive session matter and cannot be discussed in open session tonight. Mayor Amoro:�e Groomes asked if there is will of Council to review the Code modifications necessary to prevent this situation from occurring in other neighborhoods. Ms. Readier stated a motion is not necessary. She did ask for clarification if this relates mainly to the garage conversion prohibition. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated her request is to review all of what has been raised tonight holistically. There are unintended consequences of Code change as all are aware. Mr. McDaniel recommended Council refer this to the Community Development Committee to provide recommendations to Council or it can be considered by Council as a whole. Mayor ,morose Groomes stated she is concerned that another application could come in before this review is completed. Mr. McDaniel stated staff will bring a report back to Council and Council can then determiine how they want to address it — whether in a Committee or by all of Council. Ms. Burness noted that another comment was submitted by a resident of Locust Hill Lane and read it into the record. From: Barbara Schindler, 5300 Locust Hill Lane, Dublin I am a neighbor on Locust Hill Lane and totally agree with David Tiefenthaler's statemE:)nt. We are all very concerned about this commercial property. Is a four -inch water source allowed for a single-family home? Mayor Amorose Groomes asked that Building Standards respond to Ms. Schindler directly„ The CIE:rk confirmed that no other Citizen Comments have been submitted through the Clerk's office. CONSE=NT AGENDA There was no request from Council to remove an item from the Consent Agenda. The CIEkrk and Ms. Burness noted that no comments have been received regarding the Consent Agenda. Mr. Keeler moved approval of the one item on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. • Approval of Minutes of the November 16, 2020 Regular Council Meeting SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 46-20 Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2020. Mr. Stiffler stated there is no additional information to report. Staff recommends approvc-il. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 47-20 Establi=shing Appropriations Based on the 2021 Operating Budget of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2021. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citv Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 6 of 25 Mr. Stilfler stated there is no additional information to report. Staff recommends approval. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose "Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 48-20 Determining to Proceed with the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement of Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Ms. O'Malley stated that the applicant representing the property at 600 Metro Place North has requested that the three Ordinances before Council tonight be tabled. Ms. AluttO move to table Ordinance 48-20. Mr. KeE�ler seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes. Ordinance 49-20 Levying Special Assessments for the Purpose of Acquiring, Constructing, and Improving Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to table Ordinance 49-20. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Ordinance 50-20 Authorizing and Approving an Energy Project Cooperative Agreement by and between the City of Dublin, Ohio, The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District Inc., Dublin Witness, LLC and Twain Community Partners III LLC, A Special Assessment Agreement by and between The City of Dublin, Ohio, The County Treasurer of Franklin County, Ohio, The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, Inc., Dublin Witness, LLC, and Twain Community Partners III LLC, and Related Agreements, All of Which Provide for the Financing of Special Energy Improvements Projects. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to table Ordinance 50-20. Ms. Fox; seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated it is Council's understanding that the applicant simply needs cadditional time to work on some of the procedural requirements and they anticipate returning to Council for a final vote on these. Ms. O'Malley stated that is correct. Ordinance 51-20 Rezoning 45.4 Acres, More or Less, from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to Facilitate the Future Development of 90 Single-family Homes and up to 150 Living Units at a Maximum Density of 14,500 Square -Feet - per -Acre for Seniors with Varying Levels of Care in One or More Buildings with 12.5 Acres, More or Less, of Open Space. (Dublin Gateway) (CASE #17-061 Z/PDP) Ms. Martin stated this is the second reading of a rezoning for a 45.5 -acre site northeast of the intersection of Post and Hyland -Croy. An update memo was provided in the packet that addressed questions raised by Council at the November 16 meeting and issues identified by the applicant. 1. -rhe items in the memo related to the review process, the Community Plan recommendations, a summary of the modifications to the project over time, housing type, age targeted versus age restricted, neighborhood engagement that has taken place over the last five years and traffic analysis. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citv Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 7 of 25 2. Staff highlighted the 16 conditions for the PUD/Preliminary Development Plan and rezoning. The Planning & Zoning Commission previously reviewed this and recommended disapproval to City Council. 3. The conditions highlighted on the screen are those that were cited by the PZC at the time of their review. 4. As noted in the memo, PZC had concerns with the lack of alignment between the proposal and the Community Plan, as well as questions regarding the compatibility with the surrounding area. 5. Additionally, PZC cited criteria 8 and 9 with concerns regarding the status of the traffic impact study, which has now been resolved with the Union County Engineer and the City of Dublin Engineer. 6. PZC also expressed concern regarding the proposed development standards and the integration with the Special Area Plan and surrounding neighborhoods. 7. Finally, PZC cited criteria 10 and 12, which identify concerns with density, building heights, gross floor area for the institutional use as well as setbacks and yard space. Criteria 12 refers to the overall site arrangement and anticipated benefit of the development within the City of Dublin. 8. Shown on the screen are criteria 13 through 16. Staff did recommend approval to the PZC at the April 30, 2020 meeting with several conditions. In review of staff's recommendation, PZC made an independent recommendation, based upon their evaluation of the review criteria as well as the consideration of public comment that is not available to City staff in review of an application. As PZC recommended disapproval, a supermajority decision of City Council, five of seven Council members, is required to approve the rezoning with preliminary development plan. Should Council wish to approve the application this evening, staff recommends the following two conditions be carried forward: 1. The applicant coordinate with Engineering to establish final approved street names and the applicant update the plans and development text accordingly. 2. The! applicant update the development text to include all City Council conditions. She offered to respond to any questions Council may have. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Ms. Comek, representing the applicant to comment. Ms. Comek stated that at the November 16 meeting, a thorough discussion of the analysis of the staff report occurred. They have provided a memo to address the specifics and to reconcile how they view the Community Plan and how staff is interpreting that Plan. To the extent the street names have not been identified, they defer to whatever Council desires and would make any changes requested by Council. Mr. Hunter will make brief comments as well. Don Hunter, Senior VP, Schottenstein Real Estate Group, 2 Easton Oval Columbus, OH 43219 stated that the two things they wanted to share with Council are the analysis of the Community Plan and how their application complies with it as well as the Northwest Glacier Ridge Special Area Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan. They want to reserve the right after hearing Council comments to go back and share a chart they prE:pared about how they meet the various Plans. The other point is that the intersection of Hyland-Croy/Post Road — where the new interchange ramp will be exiting onto the property — has a current average daily traffic count of 22,000 — 25,000 vehicles; that travel through the intersection. What is relevant about that is the intersection is the front door to their property and is where the assisted living use (ACLF) is to be located. The high traffic counts make the ACLF use the most appropriate, low impact use. The chart depicts scores for their development plan based against the Community Plan. Mayor Amorose Groomes checked to see if Kishore Donepudi of 7183 Springview Lane hard joined the meeting to testify. Ms. Renzetti stated she has not joined the meeting. Ms. Burness confirmed that no public comments have been submitted through the website, and the Clerk confirmed her office has not received other public comments tonight. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 8 of 25 Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Council questions and comments. Vice Mayor De Rosa asked what changes, if any, have been made to the rezoning application since the lengthy discussion at the November 16 meeting. Mr. Hunter stated no changes were made to the rezoning application. They have worked extensively with staff on the infrastructure agreement. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that for the residential portions, the anticipated size of the residences on the lots are equivalent across the residential units — the lot sizes are different, but the square footage of the homes are roughly the same. Mr. Hunter responded that they don't know the specific square footage of individual homes at this point. That would come with the final development plan submission. The control mechanisms are lot coverage and setbacks. On the perimeter lots, those that are the eastern border of the property and the western border of Post Preserve — those are larger lots to match in size with those existing adjacent homes. Vice Mayor De Rosa asked for confirmation that there is no square footage maximum for the homes on the smaller lots. Mr. Hunter confirmed that is correct. Ms. Alutto stated that the ACLF is an acceptable use for the space and that does not give her concern. The concern she has from a density/intensity perspective is the narrow distance between the homes and locating HVAC units in that space. There was discussion of requiring those units to be located at the back of homes. She wanted confirmation of that commitment. Ms. Comek stated that she and Wes Smith are present to respond to questions specific to the site. The HVAC units will all be located in the rear yards. Ms. AlUtto appreciates the additional information provided. This particular development is difficult because of the awkward size, shape and location of the property. It is a transition area between the neighborhood and what is not in the City of Dublin. She does not like the street names, but that can be worked out. The nomenclature of "gateway" needs to change, in her opinion. The density itself is not a problem for her, but she wants to hear more about the architecture being proposed. The Mayor brought this up and she would like to hear her thoughts on this matter. Mayor Amorose Groomes agrees that density can be done well or be done poorly. We want this project to be something we can all be proud of — the applicant, the City and the neighbors. There are some things that can help. It is coming in as a PUD, so the zoning code is merely a guide or starting point for residential architecture. The text governs the architecture and it is appropriate to focus our energy on the text so that when the application goes to the PZC to approve the individual architecture, PZC has latitude,. Moving the HVAC units to the rear of the buildings is a start. Since they will be at the rE�ar, it is more appropriate that they be building mounted versus ground mounted, which will help the yards look more well -kept. We have few high-density neighborhoods in the City that have endured the test of time. There are some at Tartan Ridge, but one that has stood the test of time is in Muirfield. She asked Ms. Martin to review the densities in the cluster homes and asked her to share it. Ms. Martin stated that there is a history in Dublin of providing a mix of housing types. This includes some of the early neighborhoods in Dublin such as Muirfield. On the east side of IVluirfield Drive, there are some cluster, single-family neighborhoods and staff's calculated density for that area is 4.6 units per acre. It should be noted that the surrounding densities are significantly less. She added that Ms. Comek had stated that the HVAC units would be located at the rear of the homes, but there is nothing in the development text that compels that. If Council desires that to be in place, the development text needs to be amended. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Ms. Martin to keep a list of conditions that would need to be added, based on the discussion tonight. Mayor Amorose Groomes commented regarding the architectural standards. 1. On page 11 of 14 of the development text, under H, Architectural Standards, it states "All single-family homes in this subarea shall meet ...." She proposed Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 9 of 25 adding "or exceed" the residential appearance standards in the Dublin City Code. The increased density justifies that simply meeting the standards is a starting point. 2. She also suggested adding that thoughtful consideration should be given to require architectural relief and fenestration of building elevations and that there would be some consistenty that would be delineated in that vein. She would suggested adding that the PZC can hold them to a higher architectural standard. This should not necessarily add more cost to the house — this is :simply attention to detail and avoiding repetition of the houses on the street. 'What she wants to do, if Council would approve the rezoning, is to give the PZC some latitude on requiring those things. 3. Materials are imperative. Use of good materials applied artfully can make for a great residential development, even though the density may be more significant 'than neighboring developments. 4. On page 12 of 14, the size of the home. They are limited to two stories. The trim materials permitted as listed are wood, aluminum, PVC, urethane foam, EIFS, copper and fiber cement products. She would eliminate the aluminum, IPVC and urethane foam and make those a conditional use. The PZC could review them to ensure they are appropriate. 5. Likewise, on page 5 of 14, it talks of materials and architectural standards. For Doth the ACLF and the individual homes, the primary materials are listed but not the percentages. The list includes brick, stone, synthetic stone, stucco, ;synthetic stucco, wood siding, fiber cement siding and additional materials deemed acceptable by PZC. She wants to add a minimum of 80 percent of the unit would consist of the primary materials, leaving 20 percent to the secondary materials. Of that list, the gypsum reinforced fiber cement trim — sometimes referred to as hardi plank — is appropriate. Decorative synthetic millwork for Exterior applications — those become valuable when trying to create architectural interest. Of composite trim and metal trim, she would advise making those conditional and not permitted. The PZC could approve them if the PZC felt it was appropriate. That leaves stucco and EIFS as permitted materials. Therefore, there would be four permitted materials and then two conditional materials. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated these are her initial thoughts, if Council were to approve this rezoning and send it to PZC for the next steps. Ms. Cornek stated that she has kept a list of the Mayor's suggestions. They agree to all of them. With regard to Ms. Martin's comments about the HVAC units to be located at the rear, they thought it was because it is not a permitted encroachment. However, they are willing to make that language very clear. The "meet or exceed" language is fine with them. The concept of thoughtful consideration for the architecture and style seems appropriate. For materials, they agree with the conditional use of the materials as presented to PZC. For subarea A (ACLF) and B (residential) the materials are considered primary and 80 percent of the total of the exterior surface area needs to be comprised of those primary materials. For the composite metal and regular metal in the ACLF, similarly be conditionally approved, subject to an appropriate demonstration by the applicant that the use of that material is adequate. These changes can all be made to the text. Ms. Fox stated that we are "missing the forest for the trees," in this case. These are great suggestions for changes, if the rezoning were to move forward. The PZC was very spE.cific in citing the criteria not met by the plan. All of those criteria are illustrated in the notes, according to Code Section 153.055, in developing a criteria review for the preliminary development plan. As staff has pointed out, PZC considers the Code criteria, the Community Plan, the long-range plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, and citizen and neighborhood comments. The PZC role is to take a comprehensive approach to ensure that the recommendations made to this Council not only apply to the Code and the law, but to the Community Plan, as the City's agreed statement of general principles of how future development in the City should be based. There are density issues with the application, design issues and use issues. The Community Plan is used RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 10 of 25 by PZC; as a guiding document to ensure consistency in decision-making. The Plan is the PZC's reference guide for a variety of development aspects, such as the community character, land use, transportation, community and public facilities, historic presen/ation and open space. All of that is the "forest" — it is not just about the architectural details. In this case, the plan speaks specifically to the Northwest Glacier area. In implementing the Plan, it instructs the PZC to clearly place within the public record their interpretation of compliance and non-compliance with the Plan. In 2015, during the concept plan review, comments were made about mixing of the housing styles and integrating seniors within the neighborhood. If increased densities were considered, they should be designated as 55 plus. PZC recommended including senior housing styles and development design that encouraged social interaction and a focus on connecting seniors to the neighborhood amenities and including them within the residential neighborhood — not isolating them in building locations. In January of 2019, PZC also commented on concerns with aspects of the proposal without any beneficial tradeoff in the character of the development and/or the plat design that created a justifiable variance from the Community Plan as well as agreeing with the neighbors on their specific concerns about the vagueness of the ACLF and its totally unknown impact on the adjacent property. Two different PZCs have made similar comments on the proposals presented. As a Council member, she believes they have studied it, reviewed it and made the recommendation. She sees no clear reason not to follow their recommendations. For this plan, it is not about the architectural details. It is twice the ma:Kimum density and the design proposal does not do anything toward integrating seniors or offering a variety of housing styles. That would normally call for two-family detachE�d. She is not opposed to having a senior living facility and she is not opposed to the cottages originally mentioned as part of this. Nor were the residents opposed to that. However, to then isolate a senior in a two story building without any information about what that will look like on a front highway — this is not fair to the work of two separate Commissions. She believes it would not be to the benefit of this Council to ignore the work of the PZCs. There are very strong criteria review citings as to why it is not appropriate to change the zoning. Mr. Peterson stated Ms. Fox's commitment to serving on Council as well as PZC is extraordinary. He has not served on PZC, so he defers to others' expertise. In order for him to overrule the recommendations of PZC, he would not do that lightly. In listening to the applicant and to Ms. Fox as a PZC member, PZC clearly believes this proposal does not meet the spirit of the Community Plan or the goals of the Plan as much as PZC hoped it would. Mr. Hunter has prepared a chart to demonstrate how they do meet the Community Plan. Thus, he is trying to reconcile those two fundamental basic things of whether it does or does not meet the Community Plan. Or is it more of a nuance where it meets perhaps 80 percent of the Plan intent, but not 100 percent. He would like to hear a response from Ms. Fox and from Mr. Hunter about the proposal meeting the Plan. Ms. Fox; responded the Community Plan is meant to be flexible and is a guide for PZC to use cand interpret based on what citizens want. The Plan speaks about character, how a development should work, how it should appear, how the neighborhood should develop. In looking at the Northwest Glacier plan, it has curvilinear streets, a variety of housing options — perhaps single-family or two-family townhouses or cottages. It is not fair to review point by point whose interpretation of the Community Plan is appropriate. That is the job of the Commission who uses that as a guide. PZC has indicated to this Council that the application does not meet the Plan. It is interpretive, but the PZC cited their authority well. Mr. Keeler stated that he is one of the few who have spoken so far who has never served on PZC. Therefore, he relies on them more heavily for their expert opinion. He highly rekspects the members who put in many hours of work and are very thorough. He will not override their recommendation. Mr. Peterson used the term "nuance" and that is one r(�ason why you can argue that it does or does not meet the Community Plan. There are three different parcels with different zoning. From a high level, the spirit of this development — 90 single-family homes on 35.6 acres is too dense in his opinion. He agreed that the architecture, the trim and finish details go a long way, but the shape and sizE) of the individual housing units trumps all of that. He has reviewed the evolution of the project over the years and little has changed in the density. Between RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citv Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO December 7, 2020 Page 11 of 25 Held December of 2019 to April of 2020, the number of residential lots was reduced by one. Depending upon the one to two units per acre or the up to three units per acre, in aggregating all of the units — 150 and the 90 — it equates 5.33 units per acre. He is relying on PZC and their expert opinion. Mr. Reiner commented that after reviewing the application, he completely agrees that the proposal does not meet the criteria of the PZC. Ms. Fox and Mr. Keeler have covered the issues — everything from design issues to the comprehensive feel of the project, to the character of the development, the lack of information on the ACLF, etc. He believes this does not meet what the PZC envisioned for this land. Vice Mayor De Rosa added clarification regarding the criteria. She served on PZC at the time this proposal came forward. One of her first questions tonight was what changE.ks have been made since the last review. Much of this same feedback from tonight was provided at the last hearing. However, there were no changes made and she is riot certain why. Regarding the 16 criteria the PZC used, the Community Plan is number two on that list. Based on comments from earlier tonight, residents make decisions about buying in a community based on the Community Plan. A challenge she is faced with is that PZC said that of the 16 criteria, it did not meet seven of them, including the Community Plan. One of the frustrations is that people are not saying the housing is not interesting; they are not saying that some density is okay, but this is double the density of the Plan. She believes it is the additive effect — without the character of the property, without the materials used, without some understanding of how thf: ACLF will fit on that property, the applicant is asking an awful lot when it doesn't match the criteria. In general, it would be wonderful to be able to develop this in a meaningful way. She is frustrated that despite the feedback, there have been no changes and that continues to be frustrating. For her, there needs to be some work on density and more information is needed about the ACLF. At 150 units, this would be -the second largest such facility in the community on a small lot. She agrees with PZC that there remains some criteria work that must be done in order for this to meet the spirit of the Plan. Without some of those changes, 7 out of 16 is just too much to move it ahead. Mr. Hunter stated he would like to respond to some of her comments. In terms of what changed between November 19 meeting and tonight's meeting on the zoning application — the point is being missed. They have been in front of PZC for over an eight-year period. What is in front of Council is not representative of the applicant not choosing to take feedback from Council, the residents, PZC and City staff. What is in front of Council today as an application has been mischaracterized — the product, the results, and the fruits of the labor of eight years — by saying nothing has changed. This plan has evolved specifically based upon the feedback received from every stakeholder in the area. Secondly, she indicates the applicant is asking a lot of the City. That too is a mischaracterization. The reality is with respect to this property, with respect to the property owners, with respect to everything that has to go with this property, the party that is asking a lot is the City of Dublin. The City has reconfigured an interchange where 25,000 cars will be dumped onto the front door of this property. Because of that new interchange, the City is closing the intersection of post Preserve and Post Road. The City's design of the new interchange dictates that Post Preserve Boulevard and Post Preserve be closed. In June 2006, City Council made a decision to run replacements roads through this property and to chop the property up. The burdens that have been placed on this property by the City are tantamount to a taking of the property. They have not taken that position with the City. What they have said is that what they will do is take the "Rubik's cube" the City has given them and will solve every problem thrown their way. Then, when that problem was solved and they responded to the stakeholders, the City takes the resolution provided by the applicant in good faith and in turn uses it against them. He asked for permission to walk Council through the chart that clearly demonstrates they not only meet the letter of the Community Plan, but the spirit of it. It is disappointing to hear this type of response after this many years of work. Every time staff, PZC, or another stakeholder asks them to respond to something, they do it in good faith. The density is absolutely in line with the Community Plan. He read) from the Community Plan: "average densities are allowed as long as they do not exceed the total density." Their average density is 2.64 units per acre on a single- Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 12 of 25 family basis and the Community Plan for this property has an average density for this property of 2.65 units per acre. Therefore, they have not exceeded density. The Community Plan also states that "more intensive commercial uses should be aligned around the interchange." The ACLF is not an intensive commercial use. They have a low impact institutional commercial use. He also clarified that they committed to an age restriction on the ACLF; they committed to bring that facility down from three stories to two stories. They took all the feedback provided and in good faith adapted that feedback. He therefore cannot agree that they have not been responsive and have not adapted and incorporated the feedback into the plan. Mr. Hunter asked to walk through the scorecard assembled for Council. It is important to have. on the record the evidence of their compliance with the Community Plan. This was sent to Council in advance and he would like to review it. 1. He noted that the drawing shows the new interchange improvements planned. What is currently shown is a roundabout but it will now be a signalized intersection. What is important to note is that the off -ramp from US 33, a divided four -lane highway equivalent to an interstate highway, handles today's traffic volumes of 25,000 vehicles per day passing through that intersection. The 2017 traffic report indicates between 22-25,000 vehicles pass through that intersection on a daily basis. 2. The 9.9 -acre site is the proposed ACLF. The reason why there are no architectural drawings is because they cannot interest any potential user until the site is zoned. Therefore, they have agreed to materials, height restrictions and setbacks. 3. The road system that bisects the site was the system City Council dictated occur once the intersection of Post Preserve and Post Road is closed. Therefore, they have a site that is chopped up into five distinct segments south of the Indian Run; to the north, there are another 4-5 segments. The site is "swiss cheese" — long, narrow with a 100 -foot setback along the entire length of Hyland -Croy Road. Single-family homes will not sell at that intersection. The lowest impact use that can be built on that site is an ACLF — it is age restricted, has low traffic, low use of resources and a zero impact on the school system. 4. They are meeting the density requirements in the Community Plan and providing the lowest impact, age restricted use possible — no gas station or retail use. They have come up with a very low impact use. Yet now the density of 150 living units for senior retirement independent living is being used against them in calculating the density. It makes no sense. They are responding to the constraints and the burdens Council has placed on this property. They do so in a responsible manner with a use that is very compatible with the neighborhood, low impact and zero school system impact. It takes five assisted/independent congregate care living uses to equal one home. In looking at traffic density, they are in complete compliance with the Community Plan. 5. 'The Thoroughfare Plan indicates that higher intensity uses should go to the interchange. They are right at the interchange with the ACLF. They are consistent with the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan. They are frustrated as the City has burdened the property in such a way that it cannot be devE:loped in any responsible manner. They are putting forward a responsible plan in response to the City's needs and requests. He is confused about what the City wants, (and they have tried to determine that for eight years. He noted that after the November 19 Council meeting, they assembled a scorecard regarding the plan elements of land use, density, planning features and roadway system. He then shared the information on the chart that demonstrates their application complies with the Thoroughfare Plan, the Community Plan and the Northwest Glacier Ridge Special Plan. (Provided in Council packet.) 1. For Subarea A, the ACLF use complies under the Community Plan — first as a multi -family use and second because it integrates a broad range of housing Within neighborhoods to allow for a wider range of housing choices for older age groups. If the ACLF use under a strict interpretation is considered a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 13 of 25 commercial or institutional use, the use complies under the Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan calls "for Hyland -Croy Road ... more intensive commercial uses near the freeway interchange. The ACLF is located at the freeway interchange and therefore complies. They have added an age restriction at the request of PZC to make certain the ACLF complied. It also complies in terms of the Post Preserve access modification. 2. For Subarea B1, south of Indian Run Creek, the Community Plan calls for mixed residential low-density single and multi -family residential uses. Their plan is single-family and therefore complies. 3. For Subarea B2, north of Indian Run Creek, the Community Plan calls for suburban residential low density — single-family use. Their plan calls for single- family residential for this area. 4. For density, the Plan calls for a mix of densities not to exceed the average. In the letter to Council, they utilized a traffic density profile to create an apples to apples comparison of all the single-family units and the 150 adult family units. The Plan's stated purpose for density revolves around traffic impacts. The Plan standard across all 45 acres is an average of 2.65 units per acre. Considering the 90 single-family units and then adding 150 ACLF units and applying their traffic impact, it results in the equivalent of 30 single-family homes for a total of 120 single-family homes or 2.64 units per acre. 5. In terms of planning features, the Community Plan calls for an appropriate transition from single-family neighborhood. Their proposal and all feedback from staff, neighbors and stakeholders is that they should have a transition away from single-family homes and that the transition would move from east to west. They put the same size single-family lots up against the Post Preserve neighborhood. Moving west, the homes are more empty nester oriented. That was another goal communicated over the years by City Council — the City does not have enough empty nester style homes in the community. 6. In terms of the Northwest Glacier Ridge Special Plan, this calls for an appropriate transition from the single-family neighborhood. It covers both single-family and multi -family units toward Hyland -Croy Road. 7. Finally, in regard to the Thoroughfare Plan, the existing Post Preserve Boulevard/Post Road interchange changes the dynamic and the footprint of this ,property. They have provided the 100 -foot setback along Hyland -Croy and they have provided the access modification that Council requested in 2006. He summarized that in looking at the four Community Plan elements and measuring their proposed plan and how it responds to the Community Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Northwest Glacier Ridge Special Plan, they have met every critical metric. He is a resident of Dublin and has lived most of his 31 years in Columbus and Dublin and talks to Dublin residents. The feedback he receives is that people want to live in this typ() of home. If this were a controversial plan upsetting the neighbors and not respon.c.Sive to their needs, Council would be hearing many objections. They have met with the neighbors off and on for eight years. This development began as a multi -family one that met the Community Plan. However, the residents made it clear they did not want a multi -family plan adjacent to them and did not care that it met the Community Plan. They listened to them and listened to the ward residents who indicated they wanted no multi -family residences in the development. They responded and put in 90 single-family homes for the property. At the most southerly point, with the high traffic numbers, there is a triangular piece of property that will not accommodate many uses and which is not appropriate for single-family. They have a responsive plan that has made all of the neighbors satisfied, as evidenced by the lack of public testimony and e- mails at this point. They have done everything they were asked to do and are meeting the density requirements and every aspect of the three Plans cited. This property is also burdened with so many City goals and transportation objectives, all of which their proposal meets. They are very disappointed in Council's comments tonight. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 14 of 25 Mr. KeE:ler stated that, procedurally, Mr. Hunter makes good points. Procedurally, is it possible for this applicant to return to PZC and present this same information? PZC membE.krs are the experts and he would prefer they make the decision versus Council. Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that if Council were to approve this rezoning, the next stE�ps would be for the PZC to determine design, layout and lot coverage of the ACLF. 'They would review the architecture and the materials. If the ACLF cannot be accommodated on that lot, the PZC still has the option of disapproval. They would review lot coverage, height, materials and the ACLF plan would need to meet this development text. If they cannot do that, PZC could still disapprove it. Similarly with the residential units and the need for PZC to review the architectural standards, the lot coverage, materials, etc. If the PZC is not satisfied with their submission, PZC still has the ability to disapprove it. Mr. Hunter asked to respond to Mr. Keeler's comments. He has 30 years of experience in zoning matters in Columbus and Dublin. A number of Council members have acknowledged PZC members as the experts. However, they are not always the experts -- there is a learning curve for many well-educated, well -intended PZC members. Sometimes they misinterpret one factor and rely upon that in an overly judgmental way that is riot fair to the applicant. The professional experts in the City of Dublin, City staff, recommended approval of the proposal on April 30. They cited the numerous ways the proposal meets the Community Plan. He noted that 90 single-family homes over 35 acres rE�sults in 2.57 dwelling units per acre and is not high density. It is exactly what the Community Plan calls for. Ms. Martin clarified the applicant's comments in regard to their analysis of compliance with thE.kCommunity Plan. Their density analysis is based on the traffic study, which is not able. to be coupled with the manner in which density is calculated from a planning and zoning land use standpoint. Their numbers are quite misleading. The Community Plan is a very important guiding policy document for these decisions by PZC and Council. The applicant did correctly state that there are two land use recommendations for this site — the single-family as well as mixed residential. Staff did provide Council previously that equates to up to 121 residential units across the 45 -acre site. The key here is residential use. But a strict interpretation of an ACLF is an institutional use — either a for profit or nonprofit business that charges clients fees for its services and therefore is not calculated at a residential density. That is why the development text as well as -the Community Plan calculates that at gross floor area per acre and therefore an anallysis cannot be made on how many units per acre are being proposed. Ms. Foy: noted that it is really about the density. There are 90 single-family units on 35 acres, but character, quality, setback, lot coverage are all in the development text. These units are packed in and the design of the development makes the density much greater. One can interpret the chart Mr. Hunter has provided in many ways, but she believes PZC provided good citations as to why the proposal should not be approved. Mr. Reiner stated that the fact that this development proposal has been under review for many years and cannot get approval from two separate PZCs makes it fairly evident that a group of professional PZC members have not been willing to approve this project as it stands. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited the Law Director to comment. Ms. Readler stated that the discussion tonight has focused on compliance with the Community Plan and debating of whether this proposal meets it. But as has been noted earlier tonight, that is one criterion of the preliminary development plan set of criteria. No. 2 is that the proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other plans that may apply. That is one criterion out of 16. PZC cited multiple review criteria that were not met. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that the Mayor made several suggestions about material use, etc. As was outlined in the 16 criteria cited earlier, density and intensity were so much of what the PZC discussed as well as Council at the last meeting. She asked Ms. Martin to share a slide that demonstrates the intensity of the development. It includes a count of the number of lots proposed in the application and the numbers of lots in the abutting neighborhoods. The intensity jumps from nine in the current residential Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO Held Dublin City Council Decembosr /, 2020 Page 15 of 25 neighborhood abutting up to 17 at the western frontage of the proposed development. This its why the size of the house is important, given the lot size. In the second segment, there are intense density and intensity issues. She is not certain if there is any interest in relooking at the density and materials. The other issue is the intensity and lot coverage for the ACLF, which is currently suggested at 14,500 square feet. Those! are the things that would need to change to impact the density and intensity of this proposal, from her perspective. Mayor, Amorose Groomes stated this is an important question. Is her question if the applicant has any willingness to discuss limits on lot coverage? Vice Mayor De Rosa stated it would be intensity, namely high lot coverage next to high lot coverage as seen in the plan. And for the ACLF, which is not an acceptable use under the current Community Plan, the real issue as she has heard from the residents is they want an understanding of what that intensity of the ACLF would be in the neighborhood. These are the issues that have come up repeatedly, and does the applicant have interest in addressing the issues. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Ms. Burness and the Clork to report on public comments submitted. Uls. Burness reported the following comments on the website: From: Charles Sanders, 6842 Stillhouse Lane, Dublin, OH 43016 Meeting How cc,in the Council ceipprove a development without knowing the specifics of the architecture of the homes that will be built? There appears to be no standard for the "transition area" into Post Preserve that is consistent with the existing homes. Can there be some way to protect our existing property values? This plan also does not take into account the effect on the existing Post Preserve and other communities. There are so many things wrong with this proposal. There was a reason this was disapproved earlier and continues to be discussed. It does not meet the spirit of the community plan (or Dublin) and the flavor of Dublin. There are reasons many of us moved into this community one of which was reasonable community development which maintained our safety, property values, and the community feel of Dublin neighborhoods. From: Robert Speeney, 6800 Royal Plume Drive, Dublin, OH 43016 This gEintleman from Schottenstein is not telling the truth. I live on the edge of this property. 1 made my points very clear during the P&Z meeting that we were not happy with the proposed development. He seems to be having on the fact that the entrance to our neighborhood is closing and the city has to do something. From: Bill Razor, 6857 Holbein Drive, Dublin, OH 43016 I agree with the comments of Jane Fox. This is too dense and there is no character in the development. The same comments we've made the last several meetings. Don from Schottenstein is completely mischaracterizing the residents' comments. From: Charles Sanders, 6842 Stillhouse Lane, Dublin, OH 43016 The developer is not being forthright. There have been several property owners on Stillhouse Lane who have raised concerns WHEN we have been asked and made aware. Some property owners have not spoken up because of the way the project was presented. It was not totally obviou.c> to them how they will be affected from a safety, community, and property value standpoint. The Clerk reported no further public comments have been received in her office. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked the applicant for their desire this evening — do they desire it be tabled? Ms. Comek responded to the points made in the comments. They do not agree with the analysis about the density in the Community Plan. The Plan calls for the number of units per acre. If the Plan indicates they can have a higher density than the adjacent land, there would be a more intense development as contemplated by the Plan. To that end, in hearing the discussion and fine points tonight: Ms. Fox cited density, design, use; Mr. Keeler talked of plat design; Vice Mayor De Rosa asked why there were no changes. The answer is because they are complying with all of the written or objective standards in Dublin's Code. It is not fair to say that they are half the lot size of the adjacent lots, as those are 70 and theirs are 65. In terms of character, there are not Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 December 7, 2020 Page 16 of 25 Held standards over and above this. They took the standards that have been previously approved on this street and attempted to address them. The final way they can do this is to agree to the following: 1. All of the conditions Mayor Amorose Groomes has summarized they are in agreement with. 2. Eliminating four of the single-family units from Subarea B and reducing the ACLF units to 125 units. They Care trying to reconcile the subjective criteria; they are trying to reconcile the similarly situated applicants to their case; the Planning professionals on staff recommended approval and did a similar math count. Aaron Stanford, traffic enginE:ering, indicated that there is no immediate formula that converts the ACLF to the single --family use. They acknowledged using that traffic extrapolation — no one is claiming it was a precise calculation. However, Ms. Martin's calculation was 121 and theirs was 120. At the end of the day, they have reduced the density from 3.61 to now something below 2.5 with these additional concessions. They are meeting everything that is written. To the extent these concessions will be well received, the applicant would like to consider moving forward. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it has been the City's practice in the planning proce.,s to have existing neighborhood properties be consistent with the adjoining one. She is interested in hearing Council's thoughts regarding the issue of the adjacent lots and their expectations for a similar or better development adjoining. The density at the intersE.kctions is high and she is not certain of what ability there is to work with those. Does Council have interest in trying to work out these details or not? Mr. Reiner stated he believes Council should call for the question on the rezoning. He does not believe deleting those lots will make a major change in the overall aspects of the project. There are too many issues and the neighborhood has expressed their comments on this project. He is not interested in redesigning this project at a Council meeting. Ms. Alutto stated that the Planning staff and PZC members all have a lot of skillsets and she is respectful of all of them, not having personal experience on PZC. There are a lot of issues that clearly the majority of Council is struggling with, and there are a few other items that warrant discussion. Ms. Fox has made some excellent points. Personally, she has struggled with identifying that "laundry list" of things to be done to make this palatable. She is not certain what character is missing, nor what spirit is missing. On the other side, simply complying with the Community Plan is not good enough and has never been good enough in Dublin. Proposals should comply with the letter of that policy document, but also the intentions behind it. There is a gap in this case and she is not certain that can be addressed tonight. She is not as concerned with thiB density piece, but has concerns with the intensity piece — related to lot coverage. She suggests checking with the applicant to see if they are willing to have this tabled for more discussion about the specifics of what Council is looking for, or calling for the vote. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked the applicant if they are in agreement with tabling. Perhaps they could work further with staff on the items identified tonight. Ms. Fox agreed with Mr. Reiner that the vote should be called unless the applicant is interested in having this tabled. The application needs too much work at this point. Ms. De Rosa stated this is a question for the applicant — do they want it tabled or want it to be voted upon tonight. Ms. Comek stated they are willing to have Council table this and work through the issues with staff. When an application is made, the list they should be given is the Code. If these items are over and above what the Code requires, they can get that from staff and could consider them. For the record, every time they have been presented with a specific question, they have answered them — 60 plus questions. Ms. Comek noted that her client, Mr. Schottenstein has now overruled her and requests that the Council vote upon this application at this time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 17 of 25 Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve Ordinance 51-20. Ms. Fox seconded the motion. Mr. PE.1terson asked if the motion includes the density on which the applicant has conceded. Mayor Amorose Groomes responded it would include the agreements made by the applicant during the discussion tonight, including materials, density, etc. She a;3ked Ms. Martin to read the conditions into the record. Based on the discussion, Ms. Martin listed the following conditions: 1. The applicant coordinate with Engineering to establish final approved street names and the applicant update the plans and development text accordingly. 2. The applicant update the development text to include all City Council conditions. 3. The development text be revised to require, in Subareas A and B, primary materials cover a minimum of 80 percent of the building. 4. The permitted primary materials be revised to only permit brick, stone, manufactured stone, cementitious siding/panel, and stucco. 5. The development text eliminate the following secondary, trim, and window materials: composite trim, metal trim, aluminum trim, PVC trim, urethane foam trim, and vinyl windows. These materials may be approved by the PZC on a conditional basis, subject to the appropriate application of materials. 6. The development text be revised to require A/C be located to the rear of the unit, mounted above grade. 7. The development text be modified to require architecture meet or exceed the Residential Appearance Standards. 8. The ACLF and six base building types be subject to PZC approval with the final development plan. 9. The applicant revise the plans and development text to eliminate four lots, a density not to exceed 2.42 units per acre, for 35.5 acres. 10. The total number of ACLF units be reduced to 125 units. Ms. Fox rescinded her second to the Mayor's motion. She wants to vote on the original recommendations from PZC. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Ms. Fox, no; Ms. Alutto, no; Mr. Petersen, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, no; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. Ordinance 52-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with Schottenstein Real Estate Group, LLC and Union County, Ohio for the Dublin Gateway Development. Ms. Readler stated this legislation was dependent upon the rezoning in order to move forward. Staff therefore recommends disapproval in order to have it disposed of on the agenda, since it was introduced at the last meeting. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported no public comments have been received on this matter. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Keeler, no; Mr. Peterson, no; Vice Mayor De Roca, no; Mayor Amorose Groomes, no; Ms. Alutto, no; Ms. Fox, no. Ordinance 53-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Real Estate Purchase Agreement to Convey 0.002 Acres of Land Located Between North High Street and Darby Street and Authorizing the Execution of Various Related Documents. Ms. Readler stated there are no revisions since the first reading, and staff recommends approval. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported no comments have been received regarding this matter. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of' Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 18 of 25 Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yE;s; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES Ordincance 54-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Real Estate Purchase Agreement for Certain Property Located on North Riverview Street owned by B.E.T. Investment I, LLC, The Coffman Company Ltd. and Riverview Street Investments, Ltd., Authorizing the Execution of Related Agreements and Documents and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Ms. RE.kadler stated that the proposed agreement is for approximately 1.1 acres, including six residential homes along the west side of N. Riverview Street and approximately 1.8 acres of two parcels along the east side of N. Riverview Street for a total of eight parcels. [She shared a map depicting the lots.] As Council is aware, the City has prepared a strategy for comprehensive redevelopment within the Bridge Street District. That strategy was effected by the approval of the Bridge Street District Area Plan by the City on July 1, 2013. The City further determined that the successful implementation of the Bridge Street District Area Plan is essential to the long-term economic health and competitiveness of the City. The City previously discussed acquiring the two parcels along the east side of N. Riverview. The sellers approached the City about the possibility of selling those parcels, together with thE� six parcels along the west side of N. Riverview Street. Staff believes that the acquisition of these parcels will further the implementation of the Bridge Street District Area Plan. The two parcels on the east side of N. Riverview can be incorporated into the Riverside Crossing Park. After negotiations between the sellers and staff, the purchase price has been determined to be $1.95 million. Staff requested and received an indE.kpendent appraisal report and the purchase price negotiated is within the appraisal range for the property. Staff will be reviewing the condition of all the properties prior to second reading and will have that report in the next Council meeting packet. If this Ordinance is approved, staff will work to develop a competitive process for future disposition of these properties. As the acquisition of the premises will further enhance the Bridge Street District, staff recommends approval of the Ordinance at the second reading/public hearing on January 4, 2021. She offered to respond to any questions. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comment has been submitted regarding this item. Ms. Fox stated that the purchase of these properties will meet many of the Historic Dublin 'Task Force's aspirations being recommended. The preservation of 19 percent of the remaining historic architecture in the City is very valuable. She is very enthusiastic to add these to the City inventory so that they can be protected. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the January 4, 2021 Council meeting. INTROIDUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 74-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Rev1 Ventures. Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Ms. Gilger stated this authorizes the annual agreement with Rev1 Ventures. This agreement represents a continuation of services provided by Rev1 focused on new companies, technology and job creation in exchange for the City providing matching funds for the State's Third Frontier grant funding program. Rev1 is the designated lead agency in Central Ohio that is responsible for this grant program. Council has budgeted $200,000 in the 2021 operating budget for the local match for this contract. The proposE:d agreement is consistent with previous agreements. It is consistent with previous agreements and provides a continuation of services such as facilitating and promoting networks among Dublin's technology companies and start-ups; providing assistance for funding and capital; access to training and mentoring; and providing programs at the DEC and elsewhere throughout Dublin. They also support generating RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 19 of 25 deal flow when it comes to start-up companies and their funding. Staff recommends approval. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Tom Walker, President/CEO of Rev1 Ventures addressed Council briefly. He noted this partnE:rship is very important and given this environment, it is more important than ever. They continue to serve entrepreneurs in the region. It has been a very busy 2020 and they expect 2021 to be the same. They hope to spark some new headquarter companies in 2021. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the City is very appreciative of all of their efforts. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that when we come out of this COVID environment, are there .some things that can be shared that might be done differently with the partnE:rships we have? She understands that the pandemic has resulted in a greatly accek,:rated rate of technology changes. Mr. Walker noted that many technology changes have taken off in this environment. He expects to see more digital IT companies, especially in Central Ohio and Dublin. Technologies that help people work more efficiently remotely and help large corporations manage their teams remotely are not going away. Our region is strongly positioned to help start those kinds of companies. Down economic times are a great time for entrepreneurs to establish companies. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Resolution 70-20 Approving, Solely for the Purpose of Section 147(F) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Issuance of Revenue Lease Obligations for the Benefit of OCLC, Inc. by the Columbus -Franklin County Finance Authority and Authorizing Other Documents in Connection with the Issuance of the Obligations. Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Ms. Gilger stated that Columbus -Franklin County Finance Authority is undertaking a tax-exempt lease financing arrangement with OCLC that is not to exceed $89 million to assist OCLC in financing the cost of renovations and improvements to facilities, as well as acquisition and installation of equipment such as computers, servers and software. The II;;S Code requires approval of the applicable elected officials of the jurisdiction where the project is located. Staff is recommending Council approve this Resolution, which approval is required by the IRS. In addition, Allison Binkley, partner with Squire Patton Boggs is present to respond to questions as well. There were no questions or comments. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes. Resolution 71-20 Approving and Accepting the Preliminary Plat for the Dublin Gateway Subdivision. Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Ms. Martin stated that, similar to the direction regarding the infrastructure agreement, staff requests this Resolution be defeated in order to dispose of it. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keeler, no; Vice Mayor De Rosa, no; Ms. Alutto, no; Ms. Fox, no; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor Amorose Groomes, no. Resolution 72-20 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Louis Rings Residence Roof Replacement Project. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 20 of 25 Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Mr. Ac;hford stated this property is located at 6665 Shier -Rings Road and is the Louis Rings residence and barns. This property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The roof is the initial phase of renovations to the residence itself. A new roof will be installed, box gutters of wood, copper downspouts in accordance with the original construction of the facility. Five bids were received, and the lowest and best bid was submitted by E. Lee Construction in the amount of $191,850. Staff recommends approval of this Resolution. He offered to respond to questions. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Ms. Fox stated it is wonderful that the City is preserving the house. How much amore work will be required for the structure of the house and what is the condition of the barn? Mr. Ashford responded that in terms of the house, there is extensive additional work needed. This is the first phase of the renovation. There is more exterior work to do like window repairs and tuck -pointing, plus painting. There is extensive interior work to be done as well. Staff plans as monies are available to do a complete renovation of the residence. He del -erred to Ms. O'Callaghan about the barn condition. Ms. O'Callaghan stated the barn is in fairly good condition. The Golf Club of Dublin maintenance staff do perform some work out of the barn and have been providing some maintenance. Most recently, they painted the exterior of it. As part of an amendment executed with New Era Golf, it contemplated the City would have discussions and work with the Golf Club of Dublin to determine whether those properties should be released from a lease and no longer be part of that property. Those discussions are ongoing. An alternative solution is needed for the Golf Club's maintenance operations. She added that an extensive assessment was conducted on the entire residence property and this is Phase 1 of those planned improvements. Ms. Fox noted that she has heard comments from several Ballantrae residents. Is there a possibility that some of the construction debris can be put in the barn? There are piled up skids and pallets adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Ms. O'Callaghan responded staff has been looking to address that. One solution is to increase plantings around the property for screening and that has recently been done. There has been discussion with the New Era staff about disposing of some of the materials that have been there for some time. The barn is relatively full. Ms. Fox stated the screening will have to be very dense in order to properly screen. She would like to have an updated on all of that. Mr. McDaniel added that the Golf Club does reserve the right to use that as their maintenance facility. A more orderly presence would be desirable, but not evE:rything can be hidden given their legal rights to use it. Ms. O'Callaghan noted that the additional plantings that were to occur last or this week include 30 additional trees, with some trees in poor condition being removed. Ms. Fox stated that evergreens would be desirable as they provide opaque screening. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Resolution 73-20 Affirming Support that the Funds Distributed to the City and Deposited into the Coronavirus Relief Fund (Fund 265) have been expended by the City only for Costs Permitted under the Federal Coronavirus Air, Relief, and Economic Security Act Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution. Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 21 of 25 Mr. Stiffler stated this is follow-up legislation to Resolution 42-20, which required several actions of the City and the Finance Director with regard to CARES Act funds. He outlined the required actions and timeframes for the expenditures. The Resolution affirm;3 City Council's acknowledgement and support for the City's actions regarding these funds. The reason this affirmation is sought is because multiple sources indicated that Council action affirming the utilization of CARES Act funds in this manner would further legitimize these expenditures. He then described in detail how staff determined the allocations included in Exhibit A related to the pandemic. The City has recovE�red its COVI D-19 expenditures and has not and does not plan to return any CARES Act funding at this time, which indicates the City has met its goal of maximizing the utilization of these funds, particularly with regard to City expenditures. This Resolution will further minimize the audit risk associated with these funds. Legal opinions and advice have been sought from various parties in this work. The City has identified $2,567,766.77 worth of reimbursable expenditures. Of that amount, all but $60,000 is for expenditures that have been or will be made by the December 30 deadline by the City of Dublin. Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor De Rosa thanked staff for their hard work on this. The needs during COVID are very extensive — materials, equipment, connectivity and food insecurity. She is appreciate of all of this effort. Ms. Fox stated there is $60,000 estimated for community non -profits. How will that be distributed? Mr. Stiffler stated that staff worked with Ms. Nardecchia to identify three nonprofits who meet the documentation requirements and are still determining the exact allocations after rc�ceipt of the money on November 30. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked what formula was used for distribution of the CARES funds. Was it the per capita formula we advocated? Mr. Stiffler responded that the per capita formula was used for the distribution. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that there are some important items remaining on tonight's agenda under "Other" items. Regarding the HDTF, she wants to ensure they have the right time and attention for this important report. What are Council's thoughts on proc-.eeding with the items? Ms. Alutto stated that she assumes the bed tax grant recommendations are time sensitive and may need to be done tonight. Mr. Keeler agreed with the Mayor that the HDTF recommendations should be postponed so that more time is available for that discussion, given the late hour. Ms. Alutto agreed. Following brief discussion and consultation with Kim Way, Chairperson of HDTF, it was decided that this item should be postponed to the January 4 Council meeting. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the HDTF report will be scheduled at the outset of the .January 4 meeting. She apologized that this could not be discussed tonight. OTHER • Historic Dublin Task Force Recommendations (It was the consensus of Council to delay this item to the January 4 Council meeting.) • Hotel -Motel Tax Grant Recommendations — Finance Committee Ms. AluttO provided a report on the recommendations of the Finance Committee for 2021 hotel/motel tax grant awards. In view of the pandemic, there were some adjustments made to the process. She noted that the recommendations for awards total slightly under the budget allocation. The HDBA reduced their ask, but asked for an opportunity for consideration at a later date if conditions change. The Committee Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 22 of 25 decided that for those not awarded their full amount, they could have an opportunity later in the year for consideration. The hotel -motel tax fund review will be held quarterly in 2021 and that will provide opportunity for potential additional funding. Mr. Keeler added that the Committee's meeting in June could provide an opportunity for those not awarded the full amount, if their event is in the second half of the year. For those in the first three months of the year, the Committee generally recommended award of the amount provided to them last year. Ms. Alutto added that she and Mr. Stiffler will meet later this month to put together the Finance Committee schedule for 2021. Mayor, Amorose Groomes asked if the Committee is recommending award of $185,442 regardless of what events occur in 2021. Ms. Alutto responded that the monies awarded are based on the expenditures submitted by the grant applicant. If events do not occur in the spring, that money would be freE�d up to reallocate to other events. Discussion continued. Mr. KE:eler added that because events were cancelled in 2020, many awards went unused. Ms. Alutto noted the monies not utilized are not rolled over to the following year, but this is a policy discussion for later this year. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported no public comments have been received for this matter'. Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve the recommendations of the Finance Committee. Mr. RE.hiner seconded the motion. Arthritis Foundation Classic Auto Show and Cruise -In $10,000 Club Ohio Soccer — Club Ohio Nike Challenge Cup $51000 Crawford Hoying Foundation Dublin Market $151000 Crawford Hoying Foundation Fore!Fest $221000 Crohn's and Colitis Foundation Take Steps Walk $1,000 Dublin AM Rotary and HDBA Classic Car Show $21000 Dublin Arts Council Art & Wellness ARTifacts $161000 Dublin Historical Society Wireless Listening System $41167 DJHS Senior Class Homecoming Parade $11675 Dublin Music Boosters Dublin Band Showcase $1,100 Dublin Scioto Lacrosse Boosters Ohio Middle School Tourn. $31000 Dublin Soccer League Dublin Charity Cup $91000 Dublin United Soccer Cup Dublin United Champions Cup $51000 Dublin Youth Athletics Wayne Williams Mem. Tourn. $20,000 H D BA H D BA Events $381000 Ohio Premier Soccer Club Ohio Premier Invitational $71500 World Archery of Ohio Buckeye Classic $251000 Vote on the motion: Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes. • Discussion of 2021 Art in Public Places Program Mr. Stiffler stated that staff is seeking Council's direction regarding the 2021 AIPP program. In a typical year, the $300,000 for the AIPP program would be appropriated in the February/March timeframe to support the installation of the art in M.L. Red Trabue Reser►e. Staff is recommending proceeding with the $300,000 appropriation in 2021 in the February/March timeframe, or referring the AIPP to a committee or future Council meeting for discussion on possible policy alternatives. Mr. Earman, Mr. Guion and he are available for any questions. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that her understanding is that the appropriation would not be needed until the end of the first quarter. Mr. Stiffler responded the appropriation is not needed until then, but the DAC's original timeline proposed included issuing an RFP or RFQ in December of 2020. In a typical year, securing of the funding is not an issue, but this is not a typical year. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held December 7, 2020 Page 23 of 25 Vice Mayor De Rosa stated that the DAC can determine the best approach to do an RFQ, but perhaps do it for the following year. It seems that, given the size of the numbE�r, it might make sense to delay a couple of quarters. Ms. Fox stated that the memo mentions the possibility of the DAC needing operating monies, and the hotel -motel tax fund is a revenue source for them. We are all looking forward to the AIPP project in M.L. Red Trabue, but the operating expenditures need to be there for the DAC as well. She suggested delaying to ensure the funds are available. Mr. Guion noted that the revised timeline in place includes a June 2021 finalist presentation with contract execution in July of 2021. That would mean the first installment for the artist would need to be paid in the third quarter. Mr. Stiffler stated the City would still need to appropriate the funds next year and if the financial conditions in July are still not good, this would result in an uncomfortable situation. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that given the revenue stream concerns, she suggested taking an eight-month hiatus on planning this installation. Once we are on the other side of the pandemic and revenue issues, this can be revisited. Mr. Guion responded that is very fair. It was the consensus of Council to review this at the second quarter finance committee meeting when more is known of the status of the revenues. Ms. Alutto agreed, noting that the Committee will then bring a recommendation to Council. Mr. McDaniel summarized that the direction is not to appropriate the monies in the February/March timeframe, but to report back after the Finance Committee reviews the status in early 2021. • Purple Heart City Mr. McDaniel thanked Sean Clifton, Veterans Committee member and Purple Heart recipient. The presentation was attached to the report and provides details of the program. The Veterans Committee has endorsed the City of Dublin proclaiming itself as a "Purple Heart City." Staff is looking for Council's endorsement for the Mayor to issue a proclamation proclaiming Dublin, Ohio as a Purple Heart City. He added that the Military Order of the Purple Heart conducts a ceremony when this is proclaimed. The timing will be determined for later in 2021 — perhaps the August timeframe when National Purple Heart Day is observed. Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to accept the Veterans Committee recommendation for the Purple Heart City designation and that a proclamation be issued to make that designation. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. McDaniel reported the following: 1. The Community Task Force has selected their Chair and Vice Chair — Kofi Amponsah and Bridgette Mariea, respectively. He congratulated them and thanked the Task Force for all of their work to date. 2. He congratulated Mr. Stiffler and the Finance team on receipt of the Government Finance Officer Association award for the Popular Annual Finance Report and a Certificate of Achievement of Excellence in financial reporting award. 3. The planning timeframe for St. Patrick's Day is underway. Given the current environment, staff is proposing to do a static parade, wherein residents will drive through the parade units versus the parade units driving by the residents. More details will be coming. He will also be proposing some modification to the State of the City program and will be seeking Council's feedback on that. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes oJ.- Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 24 of 25 4. He thanked Council for their leadership in this challenging year and the support they have shown staff during this pandemic. He also thanked the residents and businesses for their support and understanding of the limitations placed on us by the pandemic. He also thanked our community partners and other government agencies and nonprofits for their hard work. He added his thanks to City staff and Washington Township staff for continuing to serve throughout this challenge. 5. He reminded Council of the joint work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Architectural Review Board, and the Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday, December 14 from 6-8 p.m. Vice Mayor De Rosa stated she will send out an e-mail about the evening's agenda. The goal is to share with the boards and commissions the latest in plans, City goals, their role in Dublin 2035 and to hear any concerns and challenges. A more detailed agenda will be sent out next week. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Administrative Committee: Vice Mayor De Rosa thanked all of the board and commission members who have worked throughout the year. The Committee met last Friday and covered the topic of engagement during the COVI D and an online world and recruiting and awareness building for service on boards and commissions. The Committee will provide a written report in January, in advance of the January meeting so that some specifics can be discussed at that time. US 33 Corridor Group: Vice Mayor De Rosa stated they will meet on Friday morning. Dublin Arts Council: Mr. Reiner reported they are having a Christmas gift basket raffle and the cut-off date for the raffle is December 15. He encouraged everyone to participate. Washington Township: Ms. Fox thanked them for all of their hard work. Dublin Brid._ecus: Ms. Fox reported that the Steering Committee meets on December 10. Veterans Committee: Mr. Reiner thanked City Council on behalf of the Veterans for their support of Dublin as a "Purple Heart City." COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Alutto wished Happy Holidays to everyone, encouraging all to be safe and hoping a bettE:r year lies ahead. She looks forward to spending 2021 with Council, making Dublin a better community! Mr. Reiner wished a Merry Christmas to all and a year of good health for all! Mr. Peterson wished everyone a Merry Christmas and encouraged everyone to stay safe! Ms. Foix wished her peers a wonderful holiday season. She requested that people check in with Ms. Nardecchia and see if there is anything the City can do to make the Christmas season nicer for the frontline workers at Dublin Methodist Hospital. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated they are planning a celebration and the City will participate in that with a proclamation presentation. Mr. Keeler thanked all of Council for their support during his first year on Council. He has enjoyed the camaraderie and learned a lot! He thanked everyone for making him feel at home, and Happy Holidays! Vice Mayor De Rosa stated it has been a tough year, but she cannot imagine living in any community but Dublin with all of the outreach and support. She appreciates Council and staff and wishes everyone a Happy Holiday! Mayor Amorose Groomes reported she hears repeatedly questions about how are things at the City. She is really proud of the things we have done as a City. Her Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS . DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Page 25 of 25 message in a meeting with third graders recently was that it is okay to acknowledge things are difficult. Reading emails of heartbreak, loss and fear has been very difficult. She is grateful in this time to be with this Council and this staff. She wished everyone wondE:rful holidays! ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ez, Mayor — Presiding Officer Clerk of Council Form 6101